Letters to the editor

Schiavo case not about utilitarianism

I also have been following the tragic story of Terri Schiavo and realize there is more to the story than just removing her life support or not. Her case is not about utilitarianism or weighing costs and benefits, but about patient autonomy versus paternalism. According to testimony by her physicians, Schiavo is currently in a persistent vegetative state, and whose neurological activity is barely more than nonexistent.

Although her family does not concur with these statements, one must take into account that these individuals are not medical professionals. Schiavo did not have an advanced directive, which would have avoided this mess, so her husband has remained her legal guardian. Although I am not condoning the removal of her life support, one has to consider the wishes of the patient, not the desires of the patient’s family. Her husband Michael has testified that it would be against his wife’s wishes for machines to keep her alive indefinitely. I agree that her life should not balance on her contributions to society, and I do not think anyone is making that argument. Although she is incapable of communicating her life is her choice, and, if her husband can prove that she disclosed to him in the past that this scenario would be against her wishes, we as a society should respect such wishes. What may be best for her may not be best for her family. As a reminder — Terri is the patient, not her family.

Matt Curtin
junior, health sciences

Keeping Schiavo alive not the best option

Stephanie Naus recently wrote a letter regarding the incapacitated Terri Schiavo. Naus objected to the idea of removing Terri from life support, citing that to end her life because she cannot contribute to society is utilitarianism. Naus is correct; unfortunately Terri’s ability to contribute to society has nothing to do with this case. Terri’s husband is seeking to carry out what he believes Terri’s wishes had been if she became incapacitated. Since she left no living will to make her wishes clear, it is the responsibility of Terri’s legal guardian, who happens to be her husband, to follow the course of action which his conscience tells him is correct. I know that I would not want to stay alive in Terri’s situation, so I understand completely what Terri’s husband is trying to accomplish, namely "death with dignity."

While life is important, as Ms. Naus correctly pointed out, I would make the argument that quality of life is just as important — if not more so — than quantity of life.

Patrick Egan
senior, ISS

Stadium would not benefit city

This is a response to the article and house editorial in the Feb. 28 edition about the proposed minor league stadium and other developments on Port Republic Road. This article and column give the illusion that more is better and that if we build more things we’ll finally be happy.

Many supporters of the stadium say the influx of tourists the stadium would bring to Harrisonburg would help the city’s economy. My response to these people is to stop relying on non-residents to support the economy. Instead, Harrisonburg residents and JMU students should be encouraged to stop frequenting Wal-mart and other corporate-owned chain stores and restaurants and take the extra time to explore and support Harrisonburg’s local businesses.

For those of you who think these developments would bring much-needed excitement to the Valley, I think you need to pop the college bubble you are living in. There is so much going on around the Harrisonburg area — I, for one, haven’t been bored since I arrived here. We are lucky to live in such a gorgeous area, and we shouldn’t destroy it by throwing in stadiums, stores and every other unnecessary development known to man because we think it’ll make us happy. Harrisonburg is a city that knows how to be charming without all of the extra development.

Laura von Dohlen
sophomore, Spanish